211 comments:

We need someone willing to be a one term President. It is going to be a twenty year effort to dig ourselves out of our fiscal disaster. After the first effort to repair the budget, there will be a backlash from the free lunch crowd. It will be very hard to get re-elected if the next President does what needs to be done.

The election, like all elections with an incumbent, is about Obama. Does he deserve another term? If the answer is NO, then the second issue is whether the challenger is acceptable. e.g. does he scare people? If Obama doesn't deserve a second term and the GOP runs somebody acceptable, they win.

Come on, Gingrich isn't a serious candidate, that's absurd. "Personal baggage" is putting it mildly and his style is just too abrasive. He's sure to be a gaffe machine on the campaign trail. Gingrich is barely more serious than The Donald.

Haley Barbour just seems a little too southern. Can't see it happening.

I do agree that Daniels, Pawlenty and Romney are the most serious candidates.

I agree with Dr. K that the nominee will most likely be either Romney or Pawlenty. However, I think he's underestimating Bachmann's chances (particularly if neither Palin or Huckster runs), and overestimating Barbour and Daniels' chances- I would put Bachmann ahead of both of them.

From his list-of-five, only Daniels and Pawlenty would have a chance in the general election.Romney - carries the burdens of Massachussetts health care, Mormonism, and dog-on-the-roof wierdness.Gingrich - Gets his face on the tube a lot just by being available but that doesn't mean he has a real following.Barbour - too easily caricatured as a Southern boy.

I hope he's right about the other two. But I have real fears that Huckabee could win if he ran, and would be only a slight improvement over The One.

Drill SGT. Reasonable, but not always so. A Ross Perot can queer the 'do.

Judd Gregg, if only he would run as a favorite son in NH, could at least become a broker. Not going to happen, though. I personally prefer boring, workmanlike elected officials, but everyone thinks that only people who can light up a room should be considered. And perhaps they know more than I about these things.

Romney can't run fast enough away from RomneyCare; Barbour has an inexplicable-away baggage; Daniels will not let his wife dragged thru mud; Gingrich, a has been, even I'll vote for the TOTUS-reader; Pawlenty, the one let standing...

I tend to agree with Krauthammer except for Palin. She may very well sit this out and I believe her when she says it all depends on who runs. Daniels is probably the best qualified if only he could grow a couple of inches.

Ryan doesn't want to run now but I could see him with Bolton as VP to add some foreign policy weight. He would do very well in debates with Obama.

K-Hammer is an idjit if he believes this tripe…. • Romney: RomneyCare, teh Ghey’s best friend-according to HIM when he ran against Ted Kennedy. Say what you will; to the Left of the Median GOP voter• Gingrich: Mr. I’ve Got Three Wives, and was Tapp’n No. 3 whilst Impeaching Clinton???!! Mr. Sit on the Couch With Pelosi and Maunder on About Global Warmening?• Barbour: I can hardly wait until they begin to ask him about the Christian Conservative League or whatever Neo-Confederate Group he was hang’n with…..• Daniels: Mr. Social Truce, Send the SoCons to the Back of the Bus? For a Truce, Agin’ a Truce Daniels, Booosh’s Dir OMB? In your dreams, Sauerkraut.• Pawlenty is the ONLY one of them that could CONCEIVABLY make it, but I’ll bet $20 he’s Fred Thompson, Never Catches Fire….

Right now, there is no one who knows more about actually being President, and is avaliable to run, than Barack Obama.

With such a weak field of Republicans its hard not to believe that he's going to get a second term.

I'd vote for any on Krauthammer's list before I'd vote for Obama, but will independents? (I'd like to say I'm technically independent, being a libertarian, but it's pretty hard for most libertarians to vote for Democrats.)

(The Crypto Jew)I'd love to see Daniels or Huntsman get the nomination, but I'm wouldn't count on it. Really stooges of another Administration, eh? If memory serves you’re to the Left, aren’t you? I mean I’m SURE you’d love those two to run against Obama. I’d prefer Obama not run and Kucinich win the Democratic Nomination, too.

As Joe opines, don't despair lol as Reagan was (25) pts. behind Carter and the race was basically even the week before the 1980 election, when the polls finally broke for Reagan after the second debate, which came very late in that year's cycle, one wk before the election.

But alas, there are no Reagan's on the horizon for Reps as he truly was out of central casting ...

Hmmm, awful lot of RINOs there, especially Daniels, who showed no stomach for the fight over public sector unions.

One thing to keep in mind is that Dr K has always been a closet groupie for Little Zero and I think it's beginning to show once again.

The Lefties are praying Romney will run, as he, as was Junior, will be most concerned about how gracefully he can lose. With the albatross of RomneyCare around his neck, he'll seem like more of the same.

Forget Barbour and Gingrich due to baggage. Bachmann needs more time in grade. Pawlenty has no fire.

What will decide this, like '80, are deteriorating conditions. Insta thinks Little Zero's recent testiness is a sign that he knows he's in way over his head and he has no real way to get a hold of things and I think that's the case.

Unemployment will start to rise again with prices and Zero's foreign policy reset shows every sign of coming home to roost.

The nominee will come from an unexpected corner. Remember, nobody has declared yet.

If the stock market drops by 20-30% then there will be lot of candidates who suddenly become conceivable. If the economy gets a lot better it's four more years of Obama. If it just pokes along Krauthammer's take is probably a good bet.

No one's afraid of Palin. She was a half-term governor of a welfare state that thrives on payments from the oil industry and the federal government. She has no specific proposals and speaks only in platitudes. Fortune cookies are more specific.

She would maybe carry 6 states in the general election. Sharon Angle had a much better chance of beating Harry Reid than Palin does of beating Obama. She is the Howard Dean of the Republican party.

as 'vech' said....where is Herman Cain in all of these cpnversations? Have any of you given a listen to him or even considered him? The first time I heard him speak, I thought "I'd vote for that man in a New York minute." - the crypto jew's life partner

The Republicans should nominate Tom Brady. He'll be 35 by election day in 2012. He's tall, rich, good looking, accomplished, tough, and a patriot. He also speaks well in public and is used to the spotlight.

No one's afraid of Palin. She was a half-term governor of a welfare state that thrives on payments from the oil industry and the federal government. She has no specific proposals and speaks only in platitudes. Fortune cookies are more specific.

She would maybe carry 6 states in the general election. Sharon Angle had a much better chance of beating Harry Reid than Palin does of beating Obama. She is the Howard Dean of the Republican party.

The amazing thing is that the more those, esp. on the left, say this sort of thing, the more you know that she is the candidate they fear the most.

If she weren't feared, then the left would not spend nearly so much effort trying to destroy her, as they have pretty much every day since she was nominated as McCain's running mate.

For someone as supposedly stupid, ignorant, and ill prepared as she supposedly is, it is amazing how much she has set the debate on subject after subject in this country over the last year and a bit.

Why would they fear her? All you have to do is look at Larry Sabato's electoral map. On that map, she has probably the best chance at carrying the midwest "toss up" and "leans D" states, running from IA and MO through PA. This is where Obama ran poorly against Hillary!, and where Palin's appearances were like rock concerts. Obama needs these states to win, and she is probably the candidate who most puts them into play.

The Sharon Angle comparison is also highly questionable. Time after time, when the MSM, the Dems, etc. have thought that they had a gotcha with Palin, it turns out that she was right, and they were wrong. Not so with Angle, who actually inserted her foot in her mouth on a regular basis.

(The Crypto Jew)She has no specific proposals and speaks only in platitudes. Fortune cookies are more specific. Try reading the Facebook page rather Obama’s Talking Points.

But alas, there are no Reagan's on the horizon for Reps as he truly was out of central casting ...

It is too laugh, the Faux Regan Respect…the Left NEVER respected Reagan until he died…Reagan wasn’t REAGAN in 1979…he was an ex-actor, who had already lost to Jerry Ford in 1976…and then he was Ronnie RayGun, and Mr Bedtime for Bonzo…from 1979-1988. And THEN soon after his diagnosis of Alzheimer’s the Left went joyous, saying, “Uh-UH we ALWAYS thought so”

So tell yourself there’s no “Reagan” in sight, because there was no “Reagan” in sight in 1979, either.

Palin's unfavorable numbers are off the chart. There is not a state in the midwest she would carry. And I'm judging her ignorance based on her Fox News appearances.

Putting all that aside, what the hell would she do as President? Great, she's against death panels. So Medicare, which is driving the US broke, will remain untouched, even for wealthy seniors?

She's all about getting people back to work by unleashing entrepreneurship? Great, what exactly does that mean; no payroll taxes, even lower income taxes? How is she going to address the deficit? By growing GDP and getting Americans back to work.

By record and brains, Mitch Daniels is by far the best candidate. He's actually fiscally conservative. He's had ideas and implemented them. He's had some failures but mostly successes.

What has Palin done, other than annoy the left?

We already have a President who got there by drawing large and fawning crowds. He is an absolute light-weight, just like Palin. You are a fawning fan, that's all.

(The Crypto Jew)Bruce Hayden, Krauthammer led the elite Republican effort to remove Palin from the list of serious candidates. Did he do that because he really fears Palin would beat Obama? First, Krauthammer is a FORMER Democrat, on Mondale’s staff and then his Campaign in 1984, so as far as the GOP is concerned he’s a late arrival.

Beyond that, he’s determined to “save” the Republic/GOP/Ruling Elite from “That Womon” who never graduated from the Ivy League! Much akin to Frum, or Brooks, or Noonan, or Parker, “that Chillbilly” is an affront to all the “Right” People.

Her facebook page is a joke. Reagan was governor of the biggest state in this country for 8 years.

Reagan also jacked up the Social Security tax and ran deficits that were slightly higher as a percentage of GDP than FDR did during his first 8 years. The economy did well, and we spent the Soviet Union under. So all in all, it was a good 8 years.

But we haven't had a conservative President since Calvin Coolidge. So is Sarah for means testing Medicare and Social Security? What are her plans to help bring unemployment down? It's not on her facebook page, but I thought maybe she put out some proposals in the letters to her special fans like you.

(The Crypto Jew)If Christie tried, he'd probably get the nomination...and no reason he shouldn't try, really. Great ideer, a PRO-CHOICE Republican….His is beating up on the NJEA, on Youtube….Honestly, he suffers from the “defect” East Coast Republicans suffer from…they are to the Left of the GOP median Voter.

Well, then, we'd get exactly what we deserve—four more years of our loopy experiment in feel-good democracy.

Romney probably is the only candidate who can assemble a first-rate executive management team ready to govern on day one. I admit that his 08 campaign was uninspiring, but perhaps the country has become weary of the inspirational schtick. He will have to do better at explaining “RomneyCare,” but I seriously wonder whether Republicans ultimately would deny him the nomination because of a health reform experiment that has had as many successes...

Regardless of one's opinion of RomneyCare, its major author arguably would be the best qualified candidate to lead the reform of the nation's healthcare system (...as opposed to, say, punting that responsibility to a congressional clownhouse.)

I also should add that after four years of our citizen-of-the-world president, I don't think Mormonism has quite the same alien ring as it did in 08.

Barbour and Gingrich are surely, like Huckabee, impossible. However mired parts of the Republican establishment (I'm thinking the Senate caucus) may be in Good Old Boy-ery, surely the GOP recognizes what losing propositions these are.

Gingrich is toxic at a personal level; also, for my money, he's not quite the genius he thinks he is, though feel free to differ.

Maybe Barbour is a fine human being, but I look at him and see the Sheriff from "Live and Let Die."

Pawlenty feels to me like the Tim Kaine of the GOP: a rabbity, boring, insecure guy who has a vastly inflated sense of his significance. I might be wrong-- about Pawlenty, I mean-- but despite his attempts at giving energy-surge speeches I think he may prove deadly dull. Hope I'm wrong.

(The Crypto Jew)But we haven't had a conservative President since Calvin Coolidge.Sir you’re an IDIOT….if that’s your position you are some curmudgeon who has long since passed his/her electoral viability test.

(The Crypto Jew)Romney probably is the only candidate who can assemble a first-rate executive management team ready to govern on day one. I admit that his 08 campaign was uninspiring, but perhaps the country has become weary of the inspirational schtick. He will have to do better at explaining “RomneyCare,” but I seriously wonder whether Republicans ultimately would deny him the nomination because of a health reform experiment that has had as many successes...Thank you for making the appearance Mitt…A first-rate management team; to do WHAT? Now you’re running the Dukkakis Campaign, “He’s Competent.” Really what will Mitt DO, with his “first rate management team?” is my question?

And the successes of RomneyCare, the highest Insurance Premiums in the US? Has there been any reduction in the number of uninsured? The fact that many companies, insurance, are fleeing the state? You mean THOSE successes?

I suspect that most of the people dismissing Pawlenty have never actually heard him speak.

His stump speeches might not translate well when they are reduced to 5 seconds on the nightly news, but my neighbor has listened to quite a few Pawlenty stump speeches, and he thinks Pawlenty delivers them well.

I think Krauthammer, like Rev, me, and others, are out to save the republic from a second Obama term. I don't like Brooks, Frum, Noonan, etc. either and I don't care about Ivy League degrees.

Tim Pawlenty grew up blue collar and went to the University of Minnesota. He's a knowlegable politician who has studied the issues and is certainly qualified by experience and knowledge to be President. Going to an Ivy League school doesn't make you qualified to be President. And not going to an Ivy League school doesn't make you qualified to be President. Being from the establishment doesn't make you qualified to be President. And not being from the establishment doesn't make you qualified to be President.

I don't give two shits about where Palin went to college, what her religion is, how many kids she has, or her stance on any social issue. This country is in deep fiscal trouble and we don't need another lightweight President like Obama and W.

(The Crypto Jew)McCullough, though it’s an anathema to YOU, she endorsed the Ryan Roadmap, within days of its release…but of course:1) Ryan isn’t REAL deficit/debt reduction; and2) It’s nothing but platitudes.

I like Palin--I went to a university seven miles down the road from her--but I don't think she's Presidential material.

If she'd had more executive experience then maybe. (I do understand why she resigned as Alaska's governor, bogus ethics lawsuits that nearly bankrupted her, and I don't hold it against her that she resigned. Not her fault, but her lack of experience is her problem.)

You are a card-carrying member of the Cult of Palin, but I'm an idiot.

My point is that no candidate is ever going to be so pure to run on the Coolidge platform. No candidate is going to pledge to repeal Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Hell, no one is even going to repeal Medicare Part D. No one is going to pledge to repeal the Department of Education.

(The Crypto Jew)I don't give two shits about where Palin went to college, what her religion is, how many kids she has, or her stance on any social issue. This country is in deep fiscal trouble and we don't need another lightweight President like Obama and W.You keep talking about how “light weight” she is, so surely you have some CONCRETE examples, right..I mean like “57 states” or “Speaking Austrian” or not understanding the difference between “liability insurance and collision” that sort of thing….

“W” was a light-weight? I think he was more a Christian Democrat than a Conservative Republican, but he wasn’t a “lightweight” either.

(The Crypto Jew)If she'd had more executive experience then maybe. (I do understand why she resigned as Alaska's governor, bogus ethics lawsuits that nearly bankrupted her, and I don't hold it against her that she resigned. Not her fault, but her lack of experience is her problem.)Well name one other GOP “contender” who has taken it to Obama consistently for the last 2.5 years? Name one other “contender” who’s had the “proctologic examination” that the Palin’s have and are still standing? There may be “better” candidates” but tell me who gets Ken Layne and Wonkette angriest? It isn’t Pawlenty…there may be “better” candidates, but they aren’t to hand yet….

(The Crypto Jew)You are a card-carrying member of the Cult of Palin, but I'm an idiot.

My point is that no candidate is ever going to be so pure to run on the Coolidge platform. No candidate is going to pledge to repeal Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Hell, no one is even going to repeal Medicare Part D. No one is going to pledge to repeal the Department of Education.

What is a RINO, then? What is a true conservative?Well I’d say anyone who thinks that Calvin Coolidge is the Man for TODAY is a crank…thank you for making an appearance Pat Buchanan. So I’d say I’M the “Conservative” and you sirrah are a CRANK….

Because I don’t think anyone IS going to Repeal Medicare D, or Sosh’Security or Medicare or Medicaid….and if thinking that doing the IMPOSSIBLE is the mark of “Conservatism” I’m afraid that there’s only YOU and a few other cranks who ARE conservatives….

But as Conservatism, like Sanity is a majority-based idea, I’m thinking folks like me, Palin and others are the Conservatives, and you, like Pat Buchanan, are has-beens…Kuhn would call it “Paradigm Shift”.

The attacks on Palin are utterly similar to the attacks on the Tea Party itself. The Tea Party movement was attacked by the left in a completely vile way. "It's racist," for instance. The Tea Party has been called all sorts of obscene names. For instance, teabagger, which is like calling your opponent a cocksucker.

The mainstream media has been largely complicit in this.

The people who make up the Tea Party do not care. They are ordinary Americans, and they are sick of it.

Why did the Republicans win the House? Tea Party.

The Republican party can listen to Washington insiders like Krauthammer, and pick a "safe" candidate, and hope for the best. Yea, Gerald Ford!

Or they can pick a candidate the Tea Party likes, and have a real fight. And win.

(The Crypto Jew)Maybe not, but will that necessarily be a bad thing? Dull people are hard to demonize.No they’re not. If that’s your plan, “Ah they can’t DEMONIZE this one!” Trust me, within days of the sealing of the nomination, there will be stories about “affairs with lobbyists” or “marital difficulties” or something, and then that person will be the TOOL OF RADICAL EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS! No matter who they are….If Pawlenty/Romney/Roemer are elected Womyn will be forced to seek back-alley abortions, gays will be stoned, the poor will starve, Grandma will lose her Sosh’Security and be forced to eat dog food! It doesn’t matter WHO is nominated, that’s going to be the charge…so don’t think by avoiding Palin or Gingrich or some other “controversial” nominee, you’ll avoid demonization…’cuz that’s the Democratic Playbook, and will be that for a long, long time….

Because Gay Marriage is “popular” by what measure is this evidence of anything but Conservative Public Policy? I doubt Calvin Coolidge would support Gay Marriage, so be careful what you say.

11. KatrinaHe’s a lightweight because there was a hurricane? Sure he was a lightweight because Blanco and Nagin failed to act, and then he’s a lightweight because of the rapes and child murders in the Supoer-Dome…OH WAIT…

12. Scooter Libby commutation.Because Libby was guilty…of WHAT exactly? Get back to me on that would you?

(The Crypto Jew)Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

So the number of “uninsured” fell and the number of free-loaders rose…great plan…“govern” is nothing more tha RomneySpeak for “Hope and Change”…Govern, how…will they round up all the Jews or all the Catholics…the retarded?

(The Crypto Jew)Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

So the number of “uninsured” fell and the number of free-loaders rose…great plan…“govern” is nothing more tha RomneySpeak for “Hope and Change”…Govern, how…will they round up all the Jews or all the Catholics…the retarded?

(The Crypto Jew)I happen to think Medicare D was a frivolous attempt to buy up senior votes, per Karl Rove's dreams of a 'permanent supermajority'. That sounds like pretty lightweight leadership to me.

Argument by Definition….Policy With Which I disagree or Which is Poor is evidence of being a “Lightweight”

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight?

You don't consider proposing to amend the Constitution to keep a few hard-core social conservatives excited about your re-election to be the sign of a lightweight? (W. was not seriously opposed to gay marriage,so there's no sincerity, unlike some people).

You think Gonzalez was qualified to be Attorney General?

And if lying to federal investigators is no big deal, why didn't W. commute the sentence of every one sitting in prison for the same crime? You think it's consistent with a belief in the rule of law?

My goodness, what a lot of self-defeating blather about the supposed inadequacies of the prospective Republican presidential candidates. I'd pick Romney, Daniels and Pawlenty (in that order) over Obama in a heartbeat.

Go ahead and sit it out if your special guy doesn't get the nomination. Hope you enjoy the Grant Park victory speech redux.

It is true that Pawlenty is rather dull. But, consider that the reason that many people were so enthralled with Obama was the way he made them swoon. That hasn't worked out so well, at least according to some. Maybe dull, but affable and principled is what we need.

Are you with me on getting Tom Brady to run? He's 6'4" and would be the best looking POTUS since Franklin Pierce.

Daniels put in a one-year 1% income tax increase for income over $100,000 to close Indiana's deficits. Then he restructured property taxes.

Given the deficits and debt the U.S. has, even Tom Brady will have to raise our taxes. After all, we have to pay for Warren Buffet's health care and Social Security (and even Sarah Palin's health care when she turns 65, despite her book royalties).

No they’re not. If that’s your plan, “Ah they can’t DEMONIZE this one!

I said they were hard to demonize, not that they were impossible.

so don’t think by avoiding Palin or Gingrich or some other “controversial” nominee

I'm not worried about "controversial".

I'm worried about "the voters start out the campaign already firmly convinced the Republican candidate is an idiot and a asshole". There has never been a President who won office after starting out with Gingrich and Palin's level of public revulsion. Zero in the last two hundred plus years. Think on it, ok?

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight? No.

You don't consider proposing to amend the Constitution to keep a few hard-core social conservatives excited about your re-election to be the sign of a lightweight? (W. was not seriously opposed to gay marriage, so there's no sincerity, unlike some people). You mean:1) Making your constituents happy is lightweight; and2) That Gay Marriage is popular, if so tell me why it is, it fails ALMOST EVERY TIME it’s up for a vote? Must be quite a few hard-core SoCons out there…Tell me what was Calvin Coolidge’s position on Gay Marriage, BTW?

You think Gonzalez was qualified to be Attorney General? You assert to the contrary, so tell me why he wasn’t?

And if lying to federal investigators is no big deal, why didn't W. commute the sentence of every one sitting in prison for the same crime? You think it's consistent with a belief in the rule of law?

Or do you mean telling the same story differently in two interviews? I guess he should have been better coached…tell me who “outed” Plame and when did Fitzpatrick know it?

Don't waste your time with the mcoullogh concern troll. A guy who starts with "no one since Coolidge is a real conservative" and ends with left-wing talking points about Katrina and Scooter Libby is probably not a conservative.

The problem with Romney and Trump (aside from the fact that Trump is an idiot) is that they are business guys, who expect that when they get into government, the bureaucracy will respond as would employees in the private sector. That will not happen. Plus, Trump is an idiot. If there was going to be a litmus test for "are you a Republican" it should be: Do you favor the outcome in Kelo or not. Trump favors it. He should not call himself a Republican. Any conservative/right leaning libertarian would need to remove him from consideration on that alone.

You don't consider passing easy-to-please deficit-expanding bills to be a sign of a lightweight?

Franklin Roosevelt did it.

You don't consider proposing to amend the Constitution to keep a few hard-core social conservatives excited about your re-election to be the sign of a lightweight? (W. was not seriously opposed to gay marriage,so there's no sincerity, unlike some people).

You're right about Katrina. W.'s response was absolutley pitch perfect. The Posse-Comitatus Act had only been in existence since 1878, and W. could not possibly have invoked any of its exceptions. And until the governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans request your help, the federal government is powerless to do anything.

As for W.'s respect for the Constitution, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus. His being held without charges was unconstitutional.

W. was pretty incompetent and a lightweight. He was a nice guy and well intentioned, but pretty clueless and definitely unqualified.

It wasn't W.'s conviction that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. He doesn't support gay marriage but also believed it should be up to the states and not enshrined in the Constitution. He did it just to fire up the social conservatives.

(The Crypto Jew)You're right about Katrina. W.'s response was absolutley pitch perfect. The Posse-Comitatus Act had only been in existence since 1878, and W. could not possibly have invoked any of its exceptions. And until the governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans request your help, the federal government is powerless to do anything.

They requested the aid well AFTER it ought to have been! FEMA had warned both Blaco and Nagin, and NEITHER acted…to implement their own emergency plans. But of course it’s Bush’s fault…

As for W.'s respect for the Constitution, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. Congress had not suspended the writ of habeas corpus. His being held without charges was unconstitutional. And FDR did the equivalent..was he a “lightweight”

W. was pretty incompetent and a lightweight. He was a nice guy and well intentioned, but pretty clueless and definitely unqualified.

Enacting policy with which you don’t agree doesn’t make you a lightweight, but supporting Calvin Coolidge makes you a CRANK.

For all the Palin fans, what makes anyone think Palin's deficits won't be as big as Obama's. She's not for tax increases, doesn't want to touch SS or Medicare for the next 10 years, won't touch defense spending.

What is she going to cut, then? And if tax increases are off the table, what's going to shrink the deficits? Is it just the Ryan plan?

Simpson-Bowles does a lot more to close the deficits than Ryan (or Obama's) plans. It also doesn't have quite the rosy assumption as those two plans.

I don't expect (and wouldn't vote) for Calvin Coolidge for POTUS in 2012.

Are you going to vote for FDR? You seem to like him even more than W.

Again, my point about Coolidge is that he was the last conservative President. Small government, balanced budgets, non-intervention, etc.

What the Tea Partiers and Paul Ryan (who is a knowledgeable serious guy) are talking about is rolling back things to 2008. They should do what it takes to roll them back to 1998. They won't. They like their low taxes and high spending and free prescription drugs.

(The Crypto Jew)For all the Palin fans, what makes anyone think Palin's deficits won't be as big as Obama's. She's not for tax increases, doesn't want to touch SS or Medicare for the next 10 years, won't touch defense spending..

And how do we know she won’t capitulate to radical Islam or perform PRon? Now you’re not even TRYING to argue. She DOES touch Medicare and Sosh’Security, just not the way YOU want her to…and considering that YOU would have any politician commit suicide, politically, to please you, NOONE is going to “do the right thing”-according to you. And that might suggest that your idea is not as great as you think…or are you the sort of “super-genius” that concludes that 99% of everyone is wrong, not you?

She's a somewhat good looking MILF babe! ~ Plus she has a nice wink. It's that basic as many repressed conservative men can't help themselves.

Rich Lowry, National Review editor:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

(The Crypto Jew)Again, my point about Coolidge is that he was the last conservative President. Small government, balanced budgets, non-intervention, etc.

That’s what makes you a CRANK…you define conditions 90 years ago as the last era of being “Conservative”. Non-intervention, so what would have “Silent Cal” done with Messr. Tohjo, Mussolini, and Hitler? Just ignored them? It may be Conservative, but it is also STOOPIT and Immoral.

re: Joe, is the word 'lightweight' simply inadmissible in common discourse, or what?

If you want to defend Bush 43 from the charge of being a 'lightweight', fine. I assume you're pleased with at least a great many of his calls.

You seem to think the word 'lightweight' is just a frivolous pejorative, with no meaning at all for those who are throwing it.

I think Bush 43 was inexperienced, rash, and implemented a lot of domestic policies that were expansionist and ill-advised.

You would counter these claims: fine. I daresay we can repeat each side's arguments within our own heads well enough.

What I'm saying is, vis-a-vis 'lightweight', you sound like Gary Busey in "Lethal Weapon" when he responds with incredulous disgust to our heroes' hopes of prevailing. The line is something like: "Are you *kidding* me?--Just look at all the firepower!!"

You just need one candidate who can get the votes. And, get the votes in enough numbers that the democraps can't steal the election from the PEOPLE!

Since none of us knows what happens in the future, including Krauthammer. It's an open field.

Donald Trump called Krauthammer on the phone. (He wrote about this in an article I saw, today.) He said when his secretary told him Trump was on the phone, he was going to put on a helmet and a flack jacket.

Strange thing is the pyschiatrist was wrong. Trump was very business-like. Pointing out his ACE, that's he knows business about as well as he knows the spotlight.

You're not dealing with Ross Perot this time around.

But the insiders within the republican party? They've been waiting their turn, ya know?

And, how much is George Soros willing to spend?

This ain't no "kloppenhoppen," or Code Pink situation. With Trump IN the game ... Soros has to increase what he spends. And, he's given no guarantees.

Joe said...“FEMA had warned both Blaco and Nagin, and NEITHER acted…to implement their own emergency plans. But of course it’s Bush’s fault…”

I thought Bush was a well-meaning, but awful president. However, I've always believed he got a bum rap on Katrina.

I remember watching Mayor Ray Nagin's last minute public announcement on TV with my wife when he told the citizens of New Orleans to evacuate the city. My wife, who knows next to nothing about New Orleans, turned to me and asked “Do they have a way to get out?”

Well, of course they didn't, and the rest is the stuff of human tragedy.

(The Crypto Jew)btw, is mama grizzly moving to Boston? Yes, Buckley could be sarcastic/hyperbolic at times which was part of his charm.No deflection Shiloh…the truth. You’ve missed the whole point of Buckley…he was NOT an “elitist/intellectual”…It’s a pity you are so ignorant.

(The Crypto Jew)Let the record show Joe says Buckley would have fawned over mama grizzly just like Lowry.

Ignorant indeed!.I have no idea of Buckley’s opinion of Palin…he certainly liked LIMBAUGH, Shiloh…and as Limbaugh has NO college degree I’d say Buckley would judge Palin by her MERITS, not her pedigree. As evidenced by his statement concerning the Faulty of Harvard…

I think Palin and Huckabee will both run. Huckabee is a far more dangerous Republican potential nominee than Palin. He's an economic nitwit.

What's awesome about Sarah Palin is that she is so independent.

For instance, she will not run the typical campaign. She will not hire all the political consultants and the handlers and the whole machine. She will skip all that. Her campaign will be small. She will handle herself and craft her message herself. She will be authentic and open and say what she thinks.

@Joe: As a McCain-Palin voter, you'll get no argument from me on the current lightweight in the Oval Office.

But I think 'declaring' "Mission Accomplished" was, yes, lightweight. Would Bush 41 do that? Dance on the crumbling Berlin Wall? Would Nixon? Would Reagan?

When Paul Johnson (basically) declares Coolidge the best President ever, I think that's a crank opinion. Not 'crank' like John Bircher crank, but 'crank' like declaring the Sistine Chapel an aesthetic failure, or hailing Kipling with Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dickens as the four greatest authors in the English language (which Paul Johnson also does).

I'm not *with* the paleocons; among other things, dreaming of a pre-New Deal America is no longer 'conservative' in my view because those people have gone over to radicalism in their desire for change--backwards.

All the same, I'll be damned if going back to a 2008 status quo represents genuine 'conservatism.' We need to get the federal government back at least to, say, 1992.

It wasn't W.'s conviction that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. He doesn't support gay marriage but also believed it should be up to the states and not enshrined in the Constitution. He did it just to fire up the social conservatives.

In your opinion.

PS Joe, Mr FUD is so afraid of Miss Sarah, he can't engage in honest debate.

(The Crypto Jew)But I think 'declaring' "Mission Accomplished" was, yes, lightweight. Would Bush 41 do that? Dance on the crumbling Berlin Wall? Would Nixon? Would Reagan?

Dood the AIRCRAFT CARRIER PUT UP THAT SIGN! The Captain was telling THEM, THEIR mission was accomplished! Bush didn’t put it up or have it put up….

All the same, I'll be damned if going back to a 2008 status quo represents genuine 'conservatism.' We need to get the federal government back at least to, say, 1992..1992, no 1931 or even better Pre-Teddy Roosevelt….

Sure we’ll just HALVE the Federal Budget, in ONE YEAR….I’ll be happy to get back to 2006, in a year or two.

@Joe: Yes, thanks for the history lesson. We've heard it, we've heard it. *Of course* the happy crew would just put up a backdrop spontaneously, of their own free thought and will, for the President during a speech as stage-managed asa Riefenstahl production.

This is just errant apologetics. And if your brand of 'conservatism' doesn't push for hard fiscal restraints, then it's just cosmetic.

One might as well put the 'if Bush had done it' argument in the rearview mirror and ask, 'If Obama had done it . . .'

Much of what's wrong with Obama is: he has done it.

Indeed, I'd rather have a 'lightweight' than one of these!

But seriously Joe: fine, we don't want to live in the darker recesses of the 20th Century. But what is it your 'conservatism' wants to fight for, regarding federal authority & spending?

That Obama compounds disaster upon disaster doesn't mean going back to mere *disaster* is a full righting of the ship of state, all we could ever dream of!

Everything is pretty static in the Republican Presidential Race, but same will change soon and we'll see who's really running. Then we the people will determine who we want and Dr. K. and the rest of the MSM talking heads can go suck an egg for their silly opinions?

Maybe Lucius and mcoullogh are the same concern troll. At any rate, they're both concern trolls who don't want any actual conservative to win, using the same "perfect is the enemy of the good" argument.

That Obama compounds disaster upon disaster doesn't mean going back to mere *disaster* is a full righting of the ship of state, all we could ever dream of!

Nice strawman there. Maybe we can try getting the ship pointed back in the right direction, before trying to teleport it to its final destination?

Scott Walker for President! I took Wisconsin back from the unions, and now I'm going to take back Washington from the permanent ruling class!

Actually, there are a number of Republican governors who could position themselves this way if they're willing to step up to the plate in their own states: Kasich, Daniels, Walker, Christie, the new gov in Michigan. And if things follow their present course, electability might be the highest for the one about whom nothing is known except that the unions can't say enough terrible things and he/she seems proud of it.

Look, the simple truth is that spending is taxation. When the government spends a dollar it is committing to *taking* a dollar from someone, either now or later on.

A person who fights long and hard against "tax increases" but pussies out on spending cuts is just fighting a delaying action. He is doing nothing to achieve actual victory in the war against high taxes.

One can dream that Ryan will remain so annoyed by the President's recent petty and boorish behavior that he'll feel compelled to run against him.

As for Christie, I guess the dream is that he'll get bigger ideas than hanging out in that ridiculous state and announce a Presidential run. (I just finished watching The Cartel, so I can't help but find New Jersey ridiculous at the moment.)

My father's a Republican. Doesn't read internet blogs. I think he still subscribes to Time magazine. Doesn't like Obama at all.

I asked him tonight, who do you think should be the Republican nominee?

"Oh that guy, I can't remember his name, from Minnesota I think?"

Pawlenty.

"Yeah. I can never remember his name. And there's another one, from Indiana. Whathisname."

Mitch Daniels.

"I don't like the guy from Massachusetts. Romneycare."

What do you think of Palin?

"Too right-wing. But I like all of them better than Obama."

This conversation reminds me of Krauthammer's argument that the Republican nominee should be low profile. One of those guys whose name you can't remember. Not a leader or anything like that. An enigma, a blank slate. That's Krauthammer's ideal Republican candidate, the blank slate.

This is actually complete horseshit.

It's liberals who have to hide their politics. It's liberals who have to throw up the blank slate. That's Obama in a nutshell.

"Hope. Change."

Republicans win when they throw up the right-winger. Who's optimistic and happy and has a sense of humor and doesn't give a damn what the media thinks.

Reagan. Bush. Palin.

Of those three, Palin is probably the most libertarian. But all three are extremely similar in style. They're all cowboys.

Palin's a cowgirl which makes her a far more dangerous Republican to the other side. Duh.

I'm still not sure about Sarah Palin being the candidate. I agree with others above who has said she lacks experience; IMHO, also, she is very similar to Obama, personality-wise.

I also believe she's toxic enough that others may not vote for her not because they don't agree with her conservativism, but because they're already projecting to all the mass protests that will accompany her every move, both here and abroad.

But, hell, as I said in the other thread -- let the gal run. Let's see what she's made of, solo, at long last.

Some Republican please explain to me why we should allow the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, and the rest of the mainstream media to pick our candidate for us?

If Sarah Palin gets to the White House, I have no doubt she will be reelected.

That's what happens when Americans figure out that the Republican is not actually a monster.

Palin was a great governor. Everybody loved her. She went after the oil companies, she went after the sleaze in her own party. Her approval ratings were through the roof.

Palin is so dangerous to liberals--and they hate her so much--because she is so obviously not a monster. That's why the slime attacks are far more vicious, personal, and ugly than anything Reagan or Bush had to face.

Palin is absolutley unelectable. Yet I'm the one who wants the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I'd happily take Pawlenty, though I don't think he'd do enough to close the deficit. I'd prefer Daniels and would vote for Romney or Huntsman. I'd really like to see Medicare Part D and Obamacare repealed and the government to back to the tax and spend rates of the late 1990s.

Somehow this makes me a paleocon? I think W., Obama, and Palin are lightweights and that makes me an idiot. I respect the Tea Party but think their enthusiastic support for never touching Medicare shows the don't understand the fiscal crisis the country is facing. So then I'm an elitist.

@Freeman/vb: I remember a "US News" where Huckabee was afforded the chance to opine about "I [heart] Huckabees." Of course he hated it. Not a dishonorable opinion, mind you, but I think he was sucking up to the plebs.

@Gabriel: What the hell *is* a 'concern troll' anyway? Isn't "troll" dishonorable enough an epithet? Are such people really looking for *concern*?

As a worshipper of Bush 41 who likely enough would have sided with Ford in '76, I don't count myself in the 'perfect is enemy of the good' camp. I'd be happy to vote for a "RINO" in 2012. If Palin's the nominee I'll happily vote for her too. I like most everything she's done: but are we still going to believe that forecasts much about a White House?

If anything, it's those who ardently want Palin and only Palin who are leaning towards the "perfect is . . ." crowd, if anyone is. Because I think she could be a great sort of Jacksonian President, I'm not deadset against her nomination. But I think we've rolled the dice with two-- really, *three*--unseasoned Presidents now, and I would like someone with a resume now, please.

Bad is the enemy of the good also, and I don't see much good in not manning up to roll back excessive federal prerogatives and spending. Some governor telling me they did it in some lower-echelon state doesn't make my heart rest comfy on that score.

If Sarah Palin gets to the White House, I have no doubt she will be reelected.

That's what happens when Americans figure out that the Republican is not actually a monster.~~~~~

Interesting theory ...

Bush41 was rather pleasant, albeit aloof. And when the voters really got to know him as you say, an "incumbent" president running for a second term got (37.5%). Hell, Carter got (41%) in 1980.

So many theories, so little time.

btw again, presidential politics has very little to do w/ideology as one party f*cks up and is replaced by the other party. $$$, name recognition, incumbency being huge advantages and superficiality/likability, positive attitude etc. being very helpful also.

>

Reps will pick the candidate they deem most electable ie Reps fall in line, Dems fall in love as a general rule. After McCain won NH the Rep hierarchy coalesced behind him and he won FL and did very well on Super Tuesday and was on his way.

Although there's no logical explanation for Angle, Buck, O'Donnell etc. other than very low turnout Rep primaries.

@vbspurs: I'm asking the same question: where's Rudy? I can't believe he doesn't *want* it! Terrible strategic mistakes on the trail in '07/08 but, you live you learn.

I'm not deadset against Romney. Everyone's dumping on him now but back in '08 there was a vocal portion of the GOP hailing him as the next Reagan. I think he has a smart, serious mind: but is he a serious character, someone who will swim against the current?

Oh yes, I meant Clinton too: those 12 years as gov. really helped on the world stage, no?!

I don't take the Texas governorship seriously (it's weak), nor Perry. If Texans like him, fine. But from a distance it feels like s soapbox governorship.

The only way he stays in office is if the Republicans are retarded enough to nominate some RINO who's going to raise taxes and say nice things about Islam. Then Republicans look at each other and stay the fuck home.

"too early for Ryan" That right there is what has been wrong with the GOP for my whole life. I'd suggest that it's too late for the others. The GOP certainly is the dumb party. Someone needs to remind them who won the last time. Was it too early for him? The guy never finished a term, or even had a damned job for Christ's sake. The Presidency is a job - not a wine, cheese or an antique.

Is a RINO a Republican whose highest priority is not outlawing abortion?

Every voter knows who Palin is and most disapprove of her by a wide margin. Obama has done an awful job and his disapproval numbers are nowhere near as bad as Palin's. Maybe it's time you started pushing Sean Parnell for the Republican nomination for 2012.

vbspurs said...What is the commentariat opinion on Texas governor, Rick Perry? I find him rather oily as a politician, TBH.

Calling Perry "oily" (he being from Texas) is kinda "onomatopoeic" n'est-ce pas? It's like saying Jeb from Florida, running for POTUS is kinda "fishy", or that Paul Ryan sure is "cheesy", or that Jerry Brown sure is a "nut".

I love that you cite two-term governors as "blank slates", while a woman with two years in state office and two years on reality TV is somehow the dependable conservative with the solid record.

They are blank slates on national issues. I have no idea how Pawlenty would respond to a terrorist attack or what Mitch would do if there was an oil embargo. I have seen little leadership from either of those guys in the fight against the public unions. As far as I'm concerned, one is the Indiana guy and the other is the Minnesota guy. And I might have those states wrong.

Sarah Palin is utterly decisive and independent. She backed a lot of Tea Party candidates who had no chance. She frames the debate on issue after issue, and she totally upsets the status quo.

If you're unhappy with the government, she is obviously the biggest change agent out there.

If experience is important, vote for Obama. He's got all kinds of hands on experiene. They don't teach that kind of experience in Indiana. You want to fetishize experience, reelect the President.

Mitch Daniels rolled back collective bargaining for public employees his first year in office. Indiana now has the same number of state workers as it did in 1978. He took a huge deficit and Indiana now has a surplus to use through the downturn.

What did Palin do regarding public employees for her 2.5 years as governor? Did she help reduce the number? Has she turned a deficit into a surplus?

Other than quitting as governor a little more than halfway through her term as governor, can you give me other examples of her decisiveness?

whether the Republicans will stay idiots is an interesting question. If Palin is the nominee, about half of them will stay home. The other half will be intensely behind her. Unfortunately, the intensity of the voter still only counts as one vote. The Independents will overwhelmingly vote against Palin. The Democrats will turn out in droves. Obama's approval rating will still be 42 percent, which is 4 percentage points higher than Palin's popular vote total of 38 percent.

Any one of the candidates who was elected governor of a non-southern state and served a full term.

In the Carter years a less partisan media invented the "misery index"=unemployment+CPI. That is what elected Reagan who I thought was a joke. The statistic was an accurate measure of how much people were suffering at the time. Well here we go again.

what spending can be cut to close the deficit to even $400 billion a year?

Do you remember W.'s deficits?

There's a reason we are facing a fiscal crisis. Steep cuts in spending and tax hikes are the only way to close the deficit.

Daniels is smart. He'll propose decreases in the nominal tax rates combined with an elimination of deductions, exemptions and credits. (Ryan's plan does this to an extent). This will increase revenue and fools like you will think it's a tax cut. Reagan and Bill Bradley teamed up to do it back in 1986. People claim Reagan cut taxes. He really didn't. He lowered the tax rates and got rid of most deductions. He and Tip O'Neill also teamed up to hike the FICA rates.

Sarah Palin is never going to be President. You need to start accepting this.

Pawlenty, Romney, Barbour or Daniels. All capable, experienced and infinitely better than Obama, but only Daniels doesn't look like he's running, Barbour will be hurt because he's from Mississippi and will be unfairly branded as racist. His history as part of the GOP establishment, a lobbyist and Washington insider will hurt him with the tea partyists.

Romney is LDS and will be opposed by Evangelicals and called a flip-flopper on abortion, distractions from the real issue, the fiscal crisis. His main problem will be Romneycare, because that's all anybody will listen to. There's no chance that he would support nationalized medicine, but any charge that requires more than a single sentence answer will be difficult to counter. He is also stiff and comes across as a glad-hander. Of course, none of those is insurmountable if he's running against Obama, but will he get the chance?

That leaves Pawlenty and Daniels. Either one could beat Obama, because of the Jimmy Carter syndrome: people are already unhappy with him and only need to be reassured that his opponent isn't some scary radical as the left and the media will surely paint him. There are a lot of unknown about them, but they both have histories as governors cutting spending and balancing budgets.